Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1203.4779 · Physical Review Letters

Implications of the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph Quantum No-Go Theorem

Maximilian Schlosshauer, Arthur I. Fine

Published Jun 27, 2012• 98 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph introduce a new no-go theorem for hidden-variables models of quantum theory. We make precise the class of models targeted and construct equivalent models that evade the theorem. The theorem requires assumptions for models of composite systems, which we examine, determining compactness as the weakest assumption needed. On that basis, we demonstrate results of the Bell-Kochen-Specker theorem. Given compactness and the relevant class of models, the theorem can be seen as showing that some measurements on composite systems must have built-in inefficiencies, complicating its testing.

DOI
10.1103/physrevlett.108.260404

Related papers

No-Go Theorem for the Composition of Quantum Systems

Maximilian Schlosshauer, Arthur I. Fine

Building on the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph theorem, we derive a no-go theorem for a vast class of deterministic hidden-variables theories, including those consistent on their targeted domain. The strength of this result throws doubt on seemingly natural assumptions (like the "preparation independence" of the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph theorem) about how "real states" of subsystems compose for joint systems in nonentangled states. This points to constraints in modeling tensor-product states, similar to constraints demonstrated for more complex states by the Bell and Bell-Kochen-Specker theorems.

arXiv:1306.5805•Physical Review Letters•Feb 21, 2014•28 citations

Generalisations of the recent Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph theorem for statistical models of quantum phenomena

Michael J. W. Hall

Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph (PBR) have recently given a completely novel argument that restricts the class of possible models for quantum phenomena (arXiv:1111.3328). In these notes the assumptions used by PBR are considerably weakened, to further restrict the class of possible models. The `factorisability' assumption used by PBR is replaced by a far weaker `compatibility' assumption for uncorrelated quantum subsystems which, moreover, does not require the assignation of separate underlying properties to each subsystem (i.e, reductionism). Further, it is shown that an assumption of measurement independence may be dropped to obtain a related result having the same experimental significance (at the expense of a weaker conceptual significance). The latter is a remarkable feature of the PBR approach, given that Bell inequalities, steering inequalities and Kochen-Specker theorems all require an assumption of this type.

arXiv:1111.6304•Nov 27, 2011•20 citations

Should the wave-function be a part of the quantum ontological state?

Aurélien Drezet

We analyze the recent no go theorem by Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph (PBR) concerning ontic and epistemic hidden variables. We define two fundamental requirements for the validity of the result. We finally compare the models satisfying the theorem with the historical hidden variable approach proposed by de Broglie and Bohm.

arXiv:1209.2565•Sep 12, 2012•7 citations

Alternative experimental protocol to demonstrate the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph theorem

D. J. Miller

Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph (PBR) have recently proven an important new theorem in the foundations of quantum mechanics [Pusey et al., Nature Phys. 8, 475 (2012)]. Here we propose alternative experimental protocols which lead to the PBR result for a special case and a weaker PBR-like result generally. Alternative experimental protocols support the assumption of measurement independence required for the PBR theorem.

arXiv:1202.6465•Physical Review A•Jan 16, 2013•13 citations

Detection-efficiency loophole and the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph theorem

Arijit Dutta, Marcin Pawłowski, Marek Żukowski

The detection-efficiency loophole poses a significant problem for experimental tests of Bell inequalities. The recently discovered Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph (PBR) theorem suffers from the same vulnerability. In this paper we calculate the critical detection efficiency, below which the PBR argument for the ontic nature of quantum state is inconclusive. This is done for the maximally $\ensuremath{\psi}$-epistemic models. We use two different definitions of this property. The optimal number of parties for which the critical detection efficiency is the lowest is given. We also approach the problem from the opposite direction. We provide a function that enables us to specify which epistemic models are ruled out by the results of an experiment with a given detection efficiency.

arXiv:1407.5577•Physical Review A•Apr 22, 2015•5 citations

Kochen-Specker Theorem and Games

Laura Mančinska

One of the statements one would hear pretty early in any quantum mechanics course is that for quantum particles there are properties which do not have definite values. For example, if we measure |+〉 in standard basis, the best we can do to describe the outcome is to say, that with probability 1/2 we will get 0 and with probability 1/2 we will get 1. Yet one could wonder, is this really the way things are or is it just because our description of this quantum particle is incomplete, but in fact there are some hidden variables inside every quantum system that contain enough information to tell the outcome of measurement (see Fig. 1). However, many people disdain the idea of hidden variables, so there has been rather long history of theorems that forbid theories involving hidden variables. Usually if one wants to prove some no hidden variables theorem he has to assume something about the hidden variables theories he is going to forbid. One of such assumptions is non-contextuality, which means that the outcome we get after measuring with an observable is the same regardless of what other observables we choose to measure at the same time. The first theorem forbidding hidden variables theories is due to von Neumann in 1932. Then for a third of a century everyone cited von Neumann’s work carelessly, till Bell in 1966 indicated that there was an unreasonable assumption in von Neumann’s proof and urged for further examination of the problem (see [6] and [1] for more historical details). Bell also constructed a hidden variables model for one qubit that could assign the outcome of any observable in a way consistent with quantum mechanics. He also proved two theorems that forbid non-contextual hidden variables theories using counterexamples with larger quantum systems. Yet surprisingly he himself thought that hidden variables do exists and considered these theorems only as characterizations of the hidden variables theory we should look for. In this essay we will discuss several versions of one of the two Bell’s theorems. The theorem we will consider was also independently proven by Kochen and Specker in 1967 (see [5]), hence it is called Bell-Kochen-Specker theorem. For shortness and in order not to mix this theorem with another Bell’s theorem from now on we will refer to it as Kochen-Specker theorem. We will be interested in proving several versions of this theorem and the following lemma will turn out to be of great use:

•Jan 1, 2007•0 citations
Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph introduce a new no-go theorem for hidden-variables models of quantum theory. We make precise the class of models targeted and construct equivalent models that evade the theorem. The theorem requires assumptions for models of composite systems, which we examine, determining compactness as the weakest assumption needed. On that basis, we demonstrate results of the Bell-Kochen-Specker theorem. Given compactness and the relevant class of models, the theorem can be seen as showing that some measurements on composite systems must have built-in inefficiencies, complicating its testing.
Building on the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph theorem, we derive a no-go theorem for a vast class of deterministic hidden-variables theories, including those consistent on their targeted domain. The strength of this result throws doubt on seemingly natural assumptions (like the "preparation independence" of the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph theorem) about how "real states" of subsystems compose for joint systems in nonentangled states. This points to constraints in modeling tensor-product states, similar to constraints demonstrated for more complex states by the Bell and Bell-Kochen-Specker theorems.
Pusey, Barrett and Rudolph (PBR) have recently given a completely novel argument that restricts the class of possible models for quantum phenomena (arXiv:1111.3328). In these notes the assumptions used by PBR are considerably weakened, to further restrict the class of possible models. The `factorisability' assumption used by PBR is replaced by a far weaker `compatibility' assumption for uncorrelated quantum subsystems which, moreover, does not require the assignation of separate underlying properties to each subsystem (i.e, reductionism). Further, it is shown that an assumption of measurement independence may be dropped to obtain a related result having the same experimental significance (at the expense of a weaker conceptual significance). The latter is a remarkable feature of the PBR approach, given that Bell inequalities, steering inequalities and Kochen-Specker theorems all require an assumption of this type.
The detection-efficiency loophole poses a significant problem for experimental tests of Bell inequalities. The recently discovered Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph (PBR) theorem suffers from the same vulnerability. In this paper we calculate the critical detection efficiency, below which the PBR argument for the ontic nature of quantum state is inconclusive. This is done for the maximally $\ensuremath{\psi}$-epistemic models. We use two different definitions of this property. The optimal number of parties for which the critical detection efficiency is the lowest is given. We also approach the problem from the opposite direction. We provide a function that enables us to specify which epistemic models are ruled out by the results of an experiment with a given detection efficiency.
One of the statements one would hear pretty early in any quantum mechanics course is that for quantum particles there are properties which do not have definite values. For example, if we measure |+〉 in standard basis, the best we can do to describe the outcome is to say, that with probability 1/2 we will get 0 and with probability 1/2 we will get 1. Yet one could wonder, is this really the way things are or is it just because our description of this quantum particle is incomplete, but in fact there are some hidden variables inside every quantum system that contain enough information to tell the outcome of measurement (see Fig. 1). However, many people disdain the idea of hidden variables, so there has been rather long history of theorems that forbid theories involving hidden variables. Usually if one wants to prove some no hidden variables theorem he has to assume something about the hidden variables theories he is going to forbid. One of such assumptions is non-contextuality, which means that the outcome we get after measuring with an observable is the same regardless of what other observables we choose to measure at the same time. The first theorem forbidding hidden variables theories is due to von Neumann in 1932. Then for a third of a century everyone cited von Neumann’s work carelessly, till Bell in 1966 indicated that there was an unreasonable assumption in von Neumann’s proof and urged for further examination of the problem (see [6] and [1] for more historical details). Bell also constructed a hidden variables model for one qubit that could assign the outcome of any observable in a way consistent with quantum mechanics. He also proved two theorems that forbid non-contextual hidden variables theories using counterexamples with larger quantum systems. Yet surprisingly he himself thought that hidden variables do exists and considered these theorems only as characterizations of the hidden variables theory we should look for. In this essay we will discuss several versions of one of the two Bell’s theorems. The theorem we will consider was also independently proven by Kochen and Specker in 1967 (see [5]), hence it is called Bell-Kochen-Specker theorem. For shortness and in order not to mix this theorem with another Bell’s theorem from now on we will refer to it as Kochen-Specker theorem. We will be interested in proving several versions of this theorem and the following lemma will turn out to be of great use: